3 ms·
> One could argue that Carnegie's wealth was itself a failure of good governance I'm not sure there's a specifically compelling argument here. The man brought
by ch4s3 4y ago
> One could argue that Carnegie's wealth was itself a failure of good governance
I'm not sure there's a specifically compelling argument here. The man brought the Bessemer process to the US and basically invented the idea of vertical integration. That all made steel cheap enough for the US to rapidly industrialize. It seems like a set of accomplishments worth financial reward.
> and that these rules he made about giving away that wealth are paternalistic.
The culture of the wealthy at the turn of the last century was such that they believed their good fortune obligated them to help society and the poor. This was part and parcel with the late 19th century and early 20th century progressive movement.
Moreover Carnegie actively worked against some pretty nasty things the federal government was doing. At the time when Woodrow Wilson was re-segregating the federal government and showing Birth of a Nation in the White House, Carnegie was funding the Tuskegee Institute. At the end of the Spanish-American war, Carnegie butted heads with president McKinley and tried to secure the independence of the Philippines and joined the American Anti-Imperialist League.
Regarding your claim of a "policy failure", to what end would the government of 1900 have used Carnegie's money had they seized it? It likely would have fueled the occupation of the Philippines, Wilson's racist and messianic madness, or some other horrific endeavor. Yet, Carnegie used it to fight imperialism, build libraries, and aid the poor.
- jonhohle 4y agoAnd ultimately the public got a valuable resource. And this is great for the ultra-wealthy, but it would be even greater to allow John or Jane Q. Public to allocate a larger portion of their taxes to specific areas of interest. How many people would like to see more resources for community resources (parks, recreation, often simple maintenance). Assuming tax rates stayed unchanged, guaranteeing X% of incomes are specifically directed by the people would mean X% has little to no lobby influence.
- listenallyall 4y ago> How many people would like to see more resources for community resources (parks, recreation, often simple maintenance) Every taxpayer would. Which is why this idea is entirely untenable. Hmmm, would you like your taxes to go to a community park, or to the janitorial supplies budget for a municipal building annex?
- ch4s3 4y agoAs I pointed out, the democratic process at the time was giving us anti-immigrant legislation, the Spanish-American war, literal imperialism, and (edit for typo here)entrenchment of Jim Crow. So factually turning those funds over to the government of 1900 would have been worse than Carnegie building libraries, funding the Tuskegee Institute, and opposing the establishment of oversees colonies.
- Dracophoenix 4y agoNot to pick a nit, but "retrenchment" means reduction. I think the word you meant was "entrenchment". Otherwise, I agree with your statement entirely.
- ch4s3 4y agoYou are correct, I was typing that from my phone. Corrected.
- js2 4y agoReally appreciate the reply and I realize just now it reminds me of the points made by Michael Young in "Down with meritocracy": https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment It's short enough that I'm not going to try to except any of it here.
- ch4s3 4y agoI'm familiar with Young's book and "Down with meritocracy", but I'm not making a meritocratic argument. Specifically I noted that "hey believed their good fortune obligated them to help society and the poor", which is decidedly an acknowledgment that there is an element of luck in amassing a great fortune that comes with some sort of obligation. Carnegie and his contemporaries would have viewed this through a religious lens. I'm making two points in general, it is not a policy failure to allow the market incentivize big bets on innovation and that the gilded age culture of philanthropy gave us lasting institutions that in many ways outshine the accomplishments of the progressive era government. I'm making something of a consequentialist claim here, merit is orthogonal.
- js2 4y agoI realized you weren't making a meritocratic argument and I should have been clearer. Young (I think) laments the loss of Noblesse oblige and I think blames that loss on meritocracy, and I was reminded of his argument when you wrote "they [the wealthy] believed their good fortune obligated them to help society and the poor."
- ch4s3 4y agoAhh! Well, it's an interesting argument and notion, though I'm not totally sure how to feel about it. I think the loss of a more generalized sense of civic engagement is very real and lamentable.